Suspension under service rules does not lapse automatically for delayed charge-sheet; administrative review and reasoned continuation remain valid.

Continued suspension of a government servant does not automatically lapse merely because a charge-sheet is not served within ninety days; automatic cessation is confined to the limited situation in Rule 10(7), while Rule 10(5)(a) allows suspension to continue until modified or revoked by the competent authority. The Tribunal was not entitled to substitute its own decision for the administration's once the charge-sheet had been issued; at most, it could require a reasoned justification for continuation of suspension, subject to judicial review. The order revoking suspension was therefore unsustainable, and the authority was left free to continue or extend suspension under Rule 10, with reasons to be recorded and subsistence allowance paid in accordance with the rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continued suspension of a government servant automatically lapses if the charge-sheet is not served within ninety days, and whether the Tribunal could itself quash the suspension instead of leaving the matter to administrative review under the applicable service rules.

Analysis: The applicable framework under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 requires periodic review of suspension and permits extension on consideration of the Review Committee. The Court held that the principle in Ajay Kumar Choudhary does not create an automatic and unconditional lapse of suspension merely because the charge-sheet is not issued within ninety days. Automatic cessation is expressly contemplated only in the limited situation covered by Rule 10(7), while Rule 10(5)(a) contemplates continuance of suspension until modified or revoked by the competent authority. The Court further held that, once the charge-sheet had already been issued, the Tribunal ought not to have substituted its own decision for that of the administration and could at the highest have required the authority to justify the continuation by a reasoned order. The Court also directed payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules and arrears thereof.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order revoking suspension was unsustainable and was set aside. The suspension was not held to have lapsed automatically, and the authority was left free to continue or extend suspension in accordance with Rule 10, with reasons to be communicated and open to judicial review. The petitioner was directed to pay subsistence allowance and arrears.

---